[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNSIqSQeefzai4fW@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:29:13 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] MEDIA: Driver for ON Semi AR0521 camera sensor
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:22:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
>
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
> > Putting the above line on a file _IS_ a legal declaration that the file
> > is released under GPL-2.0. It's pretty simple :)
>
> Do you think putting this line anywhere, in any file, does it?
Yes.
> That would be crazy.
Nope, that's how license declarations work. Please discuss this with a
lawyer if you are confused.
> How about a book, e.g. describing a patch submission process (but not
> a copy of kernel's Documentation). The same?
That does not make sense, please explain.
> Also - in all countries? Most of them?
Yes.
> Come on.
>
> Then why would we need the Signed-off-by?
S-o-b is a DIFFERENT thing entirely. Please go read the DCO for what
you are agreeing to there, it is a declaration for what you are doing.
> From my perspective, the SPDX-License-Identifier is only meaningful when
> the file is actually a part of the kernel, or if, at least, it's been
> presented for merge, with Signed-off-by etc.
Not true at all, sorry. Same for a Copyright line. Again, if you have
questions about this, please contact your company lawyer, they will be
glad to explain it in detail to you.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists